On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Bastien <bastien.gue...@wikimedia.fr> wrote: > Hi Štěpán, > > Štěpán Němec <step...@gmail.com> writes: > >> FWIW, I do. Having [Org] (or anything, really) prepended to the subjects >> of _all_ mails coming from a list that is already uniquely identifiable >> (e.g. by its address) has no information value altogether (unlike >> [Babel], [PATCH] etc.) and only takes up the much precious Subject: >> header space. > > Not that reducing the label from [Orgmode] to [Org] already seem to be a > progress in the right direction :) > > Would you object having [Org] instead of [Orgmode]? > >> I have never understood why anyone would like anything like that. > > As Giovanni recalled, this is a standard GNU practice and I won't break > it. Maybe this is a leftover from the time when most used email clients > had no clever filters -- but maybe it's still useful for web archiving > or other purposes I cannot think of right now. >
Is the capital-O gnu practice as well? I have no objection to changing the tag, since gmail filters my mail for me, but a lower-case-o seems more consistent with other org nomenclature. -- Jeffrey Horn http://www.failuretorefrain.com/jeff/ _______________________________________________ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
